[NYAGDU] Fidelco Doubles Down on Backward Thinking!

Wed Jul 15 17:17:19 UTC 2020

                During the annual meeting of the National Association of Guide Dog Users On July 3, 2013, guide dog training programs were asked to comment on NAGDU’s guide Dog Consumers’ Bill of rights. Fidelco offered a very ramnbling, incoherent, nonsensical prepared statement. Here is what Julie Unwinn said:

                “Thank you very much! Fidelco has read the Bill of Rights and there are some points that we agree on to some of the concepts, but not to all of them.  . Fidelco believes it is a free market of choice for the consumer and that competition is the best option for guide dog consumers, especially where services are not charged to a consumer. And we believe the options concerning training methods, follow-up services, and things of that nature are best for all participating parties to decide on together. We also agree that bona fide accredited providers will develop their own appropriate policies based upon their business model and operations. We believe that broader acceptance by a group of guide dog consumers is very important when it comes to a Bill of Rights. We recognize the NFB and NAGDU for its efforts on behalf of all its members, and we think it’s very important to encourage the NFB and NAGDU to seek ideas and input from other similar organizations across the country, including federal and state agencies because the more input that is received the better the final documents will come out.  . So, that’s Fidelco’s viewpoint on the Bill of Rights.” 

No matter how many times I read this statement, I come away with the same befuddled question. Having been given three months to review the bill of Rights, this is your prepared statement? Here is the summary of what Fidelco’s chief Operating Officer said: Blind consumers do not pay for our services, the representative voice of the nation’s largest organization is irrelevant, and our business model does not include the blind as stakeholders.

So, why am I reflecting on what was said seven years ago? Those who attended the NAGDU seminar yesterday heard the same disregard for the blind from Fidelco’s representative. When asked about these comments, Fidelco told us in no uncertain terms that the only people who matter in making their policies are their donors and puppy-raisers. That is what Fidelco so boldly tells us! 

With this sort of corporate attitude, I was curious to learn how Fidelco portrays us on their website, <https://fidelco.org/>. I find it very interesting that Fidelco refers to us as their “remarkable clients”. Though Fidelco says they are “dedicated to limitless potential — to ensuring men and women who are blind enjoy increased independence to improve their lives and the world around them. Our clients raise families, serve America in the military, and sacrifice on the battlefield. They advocate for those who are visually impaired, win gold medals as world class athletes, educate, and more.”

How hypocritical! They say all these wonderful things about us, yet it is obvious that Fidelco only sees us as pawns in their quest to raise money to support the salaries of out-of-touch executives. I want to be clear that I am not rendering judgement on the quality of the dogs and the training Fidelco provides; however, the attitude and what Fidelco refers to as its business model should concern the blind community, as well as donors and puppy-raisers. These individuals provide their time, talent, and treasure to support an organization whose stated mission is “increased independence to improve [our]lives and the world around [us]” while telling us to our faces that we do not have a voice!

Some who read this will be skeptical of my assertions, claiming what Fidelco posts on their website is more thought-out and thus more reflective of their corporate attitude toward the blind than their spontaneous utterances answering probing questions. I know I have said some things off-the-cuff that I might have said differently and better had I the time to consider my response. Remember that Fidelco had three months to synthesize our Bill of Rights and made a prepared statement in 2013 stating that blind people have no input in their policies because we do not pay for their services? Now we are told that policies are created not in the interest of the blind but in the interest of the donors and volunteers. Putting prepared statements and spontaneous utterances aside, Fidelco’s contract is very revealing, as Fidelco reserves the right to repossess the dog for any reason at Fidelco’s “sole and absolute discretion.”

Let me offer a purely hypothetical situation based upon what Fidelco says, their website portrays, and their contract allows. Let’s imagine a wealthy donor who wants to donate the $45,000 Fidelco claims it takes to train one guide dog so someone this donor knows can get a guide dog. Fidelco has no guide dogs ready to be place; however, there is someone who got a guide dog about a year ago but has never donated to the program. According to Fidelco’s agreement and based upon their donor-focused business model, Fidelco would have the right to repossess that dog without cause and without explanation at their sole and absolute discretion. Repossessing the dog from this blind person will facilitate a $45,000 donation. . Has this ever happened? I don’t know for sure. Could it happen? Absolutely, based upon the contract and the corporate attitude, I believe it could. And if it could, we need to change that. 

Fidelco is not the only guide dog training program that feels they have the right to steal someone’s guide dog. I intentionally use the word “steal” because, according to the law and most guide dog training program contracts, we have some sort of ownership agreement, even if it is not the full and complete ownership offered by Freedom Guide dogs, Guide Dog Foundation, Guide Dogs of Texas, and The Seeing Eye. According to Florida law, “A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property or (b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.” (812.014 f.s.) I am not going to develop this argument in this message as I am writing an article for the Braille Monitor on this topic I hope will be published in the Fall.) 

                Fidelco uses inspiring language such as “limitless potential”, “Increased independence”, and improving the lives of the blind and those around them. But don’t worry, Fidelco assures us, our remarkable, independent, world changing blind clients will not have a voice in our corporation. Unless, of course, that blind person is a donor. Do you know fidelco is the only guide dog training program I know of with a means test. You must submit your financial records during the application process. Is this because Fidelco’s business model is that they will only give a guide dog to someone who might donate to them? What other strings come with the “gift” Fidelco says they give? 

As members of the National Federation of the Blind, we believe the obstacles of low expectation are the barriers that stand between blind people and our dreams. No other guide dog program exemplifies the opposite position to our message than Fidelco for they believe they know what is best for us and will exercise that paternalistic behavior at their sole an absolute discretion!       

Marion Gwizdala, President

National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc. (NAGDU)

National Federation of the Blind

(813) 626-2789

President at NAGDU.ORG

Visit our website <http://nagdu.org/> 

Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/nagdu> 

The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise expectations because low expectations create barriers between blind  people and our dreams. You can live the life you want! Blindness is not what holds you back.